Polygamy and Polyandry and Islam

Coriolanus

Prompted by a AH thread, I'm curious about the opinions of Muslims on the issue.
The Quran apparently permits a man to marry four women, provided they can be financially supported and loved equally.
It doesn't permit a woman to marry more than one man, nor (I presume here, do correct me if I'm wrong) a man to marry a woman who is already married.
Just wondering on the pros and cons from a Muslim perspective, and any general comments anyone might have.

dead one

The Western attitude towards polygamy is ethnocentric and hypocritical. <snip>

[Edit] clearly displayed on the site that that came from is "Copyright ©".

You will have to explain it yourself in your own words dead one.

dead one

don't worry guys its a copy paste.. but it gives better explanation

Coriolanus

I'm dying to know what search terms you used that unearthed this, dead one.

Mark Hamill

Of Other/No Faith and neither are OK

This is the source for dead one's copy and paste (seeing as he didn't bother to quote it) and the only source it quotes for its claims is:
"Laurel Richardson, “Another World; More and More Single Women Are Opting for Affairs with Married Men, and the Trend Is Diminishing Feminist Progress,” Psychology Today, vol. 20, February 1986.", which isn't available on the Psychology Today website. Its not possible to figure out how the article, which seems to talk about the feminist repercussions of single women more and more choosing married men to have affairs with, concludes anything about the percentage of men having affairs. Psychology Today is a magazine for non psychologists which interprets surveys and studies, usually related to love, relationships, sex, happiness, success, depression, and self-empowerment.

For the record, I am not against polygamy. If two or more people freely want to marry, then that's up to them and its not my business. And once there is a clear contract for what happens when one of them dies (what happens to their kids/property) then its no-one elses business either.

doctoremma

Of Other/No Faith and neither are OK

Mark Hamill wrote: »

For the record, I am not against polygamy. If two or more people freely want to marry, then that's up to them and its not my business. And once there is a clear contract for what happens when one of them dies (what happens to their kids/property) then its no-one elses business either.

Same. With the proviso that any benefit received by the State is not disproportionate.

dead one

dead one wrote: »

The Western attitude towards polygamy is ethnocentric and hypocritical. <snip>

[Edit] clearly displayed on the site that that came from is "Copyright ©".

You will have to explain it yourself in your own words dead one.

There's a new sheriff in town. Alright Sherrif, my grammar is poor but i can kill ten people in single handed combat, they call me high plane drifter.... but wait i have something, i hope Mark Hamill don't need to help me with posting link

In the civilized western world, the answers to women’s abuse among their cultures through sex-slavery under different names, family breakdown, nudity, pornography, adultery, etc. – are tagged on the ‘old-fashioned’ Islamic teachings, which are considered incompatible with modernity. One of such solutions, is polygamy (multiple wives), which is (was) allowed in every major religion. However, Islam put a limit on polygamy – that’s instead of having multiple mistresses in addition to the single wife, a Muslim is allowed to have upto four wives, but under certain conditions (restrictions), such as, a free consent of the first wife to have a second wife and equal rights of all the wives.
http://rehmat1.com/2011/04/24/polygamy-and-wests-demographic-decline/

dead one wrote: »

[Edit] clearly displayed on the site that that came from is "Copyright ©".

clearly mark has given link before you edited my post and that's not violation of any act of copyright. I knew Mark Hamil would do that, that's why i left it for Mark Hamil, that was part of plan and everything happened according to reason. See my second post in which i mention it is copy paste and it made mark hamil to do the needful. If you had edited the post before Mark Hamil's post then I would peacefully surrender but that isn't case. Your edition has made correct what was written in the content of Post. You prove it by editing as therefore you have explained the post yourself... There is no need to explain it further. see what was written in the post and what made you to it edit it...

In the West today, it is common for married men to have extramarital relations with mistresses, girlfriends, and prostitutes. Consequently, the Western claim to monogamy[4] is a misnomer. How common are they? Estimates range between 23-50% men and 13-50% women in the US had an extramarital affair during their lifetimes. More than 15% of all husbands say they have had a series of affairs, and nearly 70% of married men younger than 40 expect to have an extramarital relationship.[5]
The hypocrisy of the West towards polygamy can also be seen in the fact that taking a second wife, even with the free consent of the first wife, is a violation of Western law. On the other hand, cheating on the wife, without her knowledge or consent, is legitimate in the eyes of the law. What is the legal wisdom behind such a contradiction? Is the law designed to reward deception and punish honesty? It is an unfathomable paradox of the modern ‘civilized’ world. Furthermore, homosexuality is legal, but polygamy is illegal and, in some cases, criminal.

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

For the record, I am not against polygamy. If two or more people freely want to marry, then that's up to them and its not my business. And once there is a clear contract for what happens when one of them dies (what happens to their kids/property) then its no-one elses business either.

For the record, you're not against other things like advertisement of women, nudity, pornography, trade of woman in the name of freedom, girlfriends, mistresses etc. See, if you're not against polygamy then you must be against polygamy's againsts... The purpose of polygamy is to secure right of women in a society... It is very hypocritical to say that you're not against polygamy, on the other hand, you're in favor of things which destroy purpose of polygamy in a society. I think you're not aware of true purpose of polygamy, why is polygamy allowed in Islam. The women population in most of western countries is higher than the male population. Add to 30M non-child-bearing gay and lesbian population in Europe. So no need for women to become prostitute, mistresses, girlfriend.

dead one

Coriolanus wrote: »

I'm dying to know what search terms you used that unearthed this, dead one.

A man has his own secrets.

Corkfeen

Of Other/No Faith and neither are OK

I'm actually beginning to suspect that he's a troll. He finds something to argue with each poster about....

dead one

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm actually beginning to suspect that he's a troll. He finds something to argue with each poster about....

Actually the problem is, I am a mentor/tutor and your minds are not fully grown to grasp the very purpose why I am here... Perhaps, I was born with the curiosity of old crows.

Mark Hamill

Of Other/No Faith and neither are OK

dead one wrote: »

For the record, you're not against other things like advertisement of women, nudity, pornography, trade of woman in the name of freedom, girlfriends, mistresses etc.

I'm not against using women in advertising (I assume thats what you mean), nudity, pornography and girlfriends assuming the women involved freely choose to be there. I don't know what you mean by "trade of woman in the name of freedom" and I am against mistress because thats cheating on your spouse. I feel the exact same way about men in these situations as women in these situations.

dead one wrote: »

See, if you're not against polygamy then you must be against polygamy's againsts...

dead one wrote: »

The purpose of polygamy is to secure right of women in a society...

I have heard that polygamy was Islam's answer to the problem of widows having no rights to their deceased husbands property back before the middle ages. These women could remarry another man to ensure their own social security. To be honest, back then, it was probably a far better outcome for a widow than what would happen to her if she was in pre-middle ages Europe. However, I dont think that that is the argument for polygamy nowadays (least not in teh west)

dead one wrote: »

It is very hypocritical to say that you're not against polygamy, on the other hand, you're in favor of things which destroy purpose of polygamy in a society.

Polygamy is not for everyone, i'm not against polygamy for those who want it, and I'm not against monogamy or single life for those who want that. Its not hypocritical to not be against the various options people have, even if choosing one negates choosing another.

dead one wrote: »

I think you're not aware of true purpose of polygamy, why is polygamy allowed in Islam. The women population in most of western countries is higher than the male population. Add to 30M non-child-bearing gay and lesbian population in Europe. So no need for women to become prostitute, mistresses, girlfriend.

Well I mentioned above what I understood as Islam' argument for polygamy. What's interesting is back before the middle ages, Islam probably offered a better choice for women in need that the likes of Europe. However nowadays that justification is a bit out of date as women don't need men to support them because they are equal in western society to men. Women can live their entire lives unmarried if they like, and still have social security regardless.

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not against using women in advertising (I assume thats what you mean), nudity, pornography and girlfriends assuming the women involved freely choose to be there.

The freedom which destroys society as whole, why would a genius like you see it as freedom. If you see as a whole it's not freedom, It's a trap... A freedom which blows up your houses, A freedom which destroys maintenance of the family and the position of women within the family. A freedom which destroys character of every child/men/women... How could you say it freedom... Don't you know what does freedom mean... In freedom you're free not slave but the freedom which you're talking about it makes people slaves.. It makes people sick... and I am sick of it...See where your society is going and you favor it. Honestly it is enmity with those children who are still in the bellies of mother and their mothers don't know where to go and fathers are sleeping with other women.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by "trade of woman in the name of freedom" and I am against mistress because thats cheating on your spouse. I feel the exact same way about men in these situations as women in these situations.

flourishing parts of women to cheat customers, advertising of cars using body of women or men. Making commercial in such a way that it only tells merit of products, It's also cheating. Do you favor it. Isn't it cheat or trade of women.. I mean using women for business purpose.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I have heard that polygamy was Islam's answer to the problem of widows having no rights to their deceased husbands property back before the middle ages. These women could remarry another man to ensure their own social security. To be honest, back then, it was probably a far better outcome for a widow than what would happen to her if she was in pre-middle ages Europe. However, I dont think that that is the argument for polygamy nowadays (least not in teh west)

You heard it some twisted mind. The real purpose of polygamy is to maintain society as whole, It makes men to support women, Like i said, the women population in west is higher than men population and if each man marries one woman then it leaves many women without husbands... The only option left for these women is to become public property as you see it is very common in west to have mistresses/girlfriends/prostitutes... To secure rights of these women Islam gives a better option... That is polygamy.. but..Islam put a limit on polygamy – that’s instead of having multiple mistresses/girlfriends in addition to the single wife, a Muslim is allowed to have upto four wives, but under certain conditions (restrictions), such as, a free consent of the first wife to have a second wife and equal rights of all the wives.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Polygamy is not for everyone, i'm it against polygamy for those who want it, and I'm not against monogamy or single life for those who want that. Its not hypocritical to not be against the various options people have, even if choosing one negates choosing another.

There are no holly desires in polygamy.. Like, you're not understanding the real purpose. It isn't for those who want it... It is for those for those who sacrifice themselves in the name of society. For betterment of society. I hope you would get the point. I mean people who support women not for their desires but for their welfare that these women don't become public property.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

However nowadays that justification is a bit out of date as women don't need men to support them because they are equal in western society to men. Women can live their entire lives unmarried if they like, and still have social security regardless.

why would a woman need to live their entire live unmarried, because your society is already feeding her desires. It is very hypocritical to say Women can live their entire lives unmarried if they like... Can a women live her entire life without having a relationship with another man. The answer is no... What makes women live their entire lives unmarried if they like because corruption in society and family system... Because men are hypocrite and they aren't bold.. Such a shame

old_aussie

dead one wrote: »

The Western attitude towards polygamy is ethnocentric and hypocritical. <snip>

Ans so is the islamic attitude in this tread, just look at the poll dead one and let me see how you interpret the facts to how they suit your views/opinion.

dead one

old_aussie wrote: »

Ans so is the islamic attitude in this tread, just look at the poll dead one and let me see how you interpret the facts to how they suit your views/opinion.

The poll is proving true what I've written so far. See the last option.

Of Other/No Faith and neither are OK

and what is ok, Surrender to dark desires... A road to Temptation of hill driven by our own lusts

Mark Hamill

Of Other/No Faith and neither are OK

dead one wrote: »

The freedom which destroys society as whole, why would a genius like you see it as freedom. If you see as a whole it's not freedom, It's a trap... A freedom which blows up your houses, A freedom which destroys maintenance of the family and the position of women within the family. A freedom which destroys character of every child/men/women... How could you say it freedom... Don't you know what does freedom mean... In freedom you're free not slave but the freedom which you're talking about it makes people slaves.. It makes people sick... and I am sick of it...See where your society is going and you favor it. Honestly it is enmity with those children who are still in the bellies of mother and their mothers don't know where to go and fathers are sleeping with other women.

"Freedom destroys society" is a common claim you like to make, but you never seem to give evidence for this. Can you give examples of western societies destroyed by freedom and muslims societies protected by their lack of freedom?

dead one wrote: »

flourishing parts of women to cheat customers, advertising of cars using body of women or men. Making commercial in such a way that it only tells merit of products, It's also cheating. Do you favor it. Isn't it cheat or trade of women.. I mean using women for business purpose.

But why just women? Why not men too? If you are really against commercials cheating, why aren't you equally against commercials which abuse statistics or science-y sounding terms to sell their products?

dead one wrote: »

the women population in west is higher than men population and if each man marries one woman then it leaves many women without husbands...

Are you sure? According to the CIA handbook, men out number women overall (3,407,012,960 men vs 3,361,154,752 women). Now if it is true that western countries have more women then men, then it must mean that eastern and muslim countries must have more men than women, which would mean they would have no justification for polygamy (as there are more than enough men to go around).

dead one wrote: »

The only option left for these women is to become public property as you see it is very common in west to have mistresses/girlfriends/prostitutes... To secure rights of these women Islam gives a better option... That is polygamy.. but..Islam put a limit on polygamy – that’s instead of having multiple mistresses/girlfriends in addition to the single wife, a Muslim is allowed to have up to four wives, but under certain conditions (restrictions), such as, a free consent of the first wife to have a second wife and equal rights of all the wives.

I'm still waiting for a usable reference for the claim that a significant number of women are mistresses or prostitutes. Last I checked, for women in the west, being a girlfriend (or wife) is not based on ownership or desire for financial or social support, its about companionship and love.

dead one wrote: »

There are no holly desires in polygamy.. Like, you're not understanding the real purpose. It isn't for those who want it... It is for those for those who sacrifice themselves in the name of society. For betterment of society. I hope you would get the point. I mean people who support women not for their desires but for their welfare that these women don't become public property.

How, nowadays, would these women become public property? There are plenty of social services for single people to avail of if they somehow end up completely unqualified for an self sustaining employment. Even if a women was in financial difficulty today, there are plenty of single men around to support them, so they dont need to enter polygamous marriages to stay secure.

dead one wrote: »

why would a woman need to live their entire live unmarried, because your society is already feeding her desires. It is very hypocritical to say Women can live their entire lives unmarried if they like... Can a women live her entire life without having a relationship with another man. The answer is no... What makes women live their entire lives unmarried if they like because corruption in society and family system... Because men are hypocrite and they aren't bold.. Such a shame

What the hell are you talking about? It's hypocritical to say women can live their lives unmarried, if they want to? Do you know what hypocritical actually means? How does men not being bold lead to women living unmarried? Do women only know they want to marry if a man is bold enough to approach them? Can't women make the first move?

El_Duderino 09

Of Other/No Faith and neither are OK

dead one wrote: »

The poll is proving true what I've written so far. See the last option.

and what is ok, Surrender to dark desires... A road to Temptation of hill driven by our own lusts

Either I have missed your point or you have totally missed the meaning of that option in the poll.

Those are people who are not religious and are opposed to polygamy.

Just to clarify what is your view on polygamy and polyandry?

HamletOrHecuba

Of Other/No Faith and Polyandry is OK but not Polygamy

dead one wrote: »

The Western attitude towards polygamy is ethnocentric and hypocritical.

Yes that is true NOW.

The west is no longer Christian though; traditional Christians believe that modern west is a demonocracy. Traditional Christians do not believe that the manipulation of fallen passions by big business means freedom. Traditional Christians condemn the unjust wars waged in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Polygamy I believe is not against the natural law, but it is inferior to monogamy.

Sonics2k

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Some Traditional Christians condemn the unjust wars waged in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Fixed that for you

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Polygamy I believe is not against the natural law, but it is inferior to monogamy.

Random question here.
Presumably you're okay with one male having many wives, but how about a female having many husbands?

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

"Freedom destroys society" is a common claim you like to make, but you never seem to give evidence for this. Can you give examples of western societies destroyed by freedom and muslims societies protected by their lack of freedom?

Evidence is quite clear but you need a seer's eye to see it. You have a ordinary eye and ordinary eyes can't see it. Freedom which lacks control is corrosive to societies. Majority of Western are pure example for this... They have made much progress but fail to pure their soul. See, I am seeing that your civilization was dominated by evil. People are suffering with superiority complex and their inner self is quite darker. It is quite darker than those likes of Ghenghez Khan. See if I tell you my true thoughts, you won't be able to bear the truth. The Europe is dark with smoke of machines there is no torch which brights its inner light. The inner light has been gone. See your soul is dark as there is no purity in it.. Cleanliness of conscience is necessary.. Your Knowledge has been secularized and the secularized mind cut off from the unseen world... the unseen world-- the world of the sacred----The heart would then lose that sacred light without which its sight is... I know it's very hard for you to understand me, but I know people will understand me.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But why just women? Why not men too? If you are really against commercials cheating, why aren't you equally against commercials which abuse statistics or science-y sounding terms to sell their products?

I am talking about majority. Majority are from women.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

, its about companionship and love.

What a strange love. which starts on body and ends on body.. You don't know real meaning love, love sees what eyes can't see.

dead one

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Either I have missed your point or you have totally missed the meaning of that option in the poll.

Those are people who are not religious and are opposed to polygamy.

Just to clarify what is your view on polygamy and polyandry?

I am talking general western behavior about polygamy .... Why it isn't ok.. when girlfriends/mistresses/cheating is ok. I hope you get the point. Polyandry is also in the option but i don't care they think about polyandry. I don't care

the_syco

dead one wrote: »

Can a women live her entire life without having a relationship with another man. The answer is no...

How do lesbians figure into this world of yours?

Monty Burnz

dead one wrote: »

The purpose of polygamy is to secure right of women in a society...

Can I just say...LOL...

dead one

the_syco wrote: »

How do lesbians figure into this world of yours?

lesbianism, it's sickness, contradiction to the rule of nature.. lesbianism, It is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, and corruption in human nature... No woman is born lesbian , just like no one is born a killerr. People get these stupid habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education.... syco, let's clean the world from these syco disases

Corkfeen

Of Other/No Faith and neither are OK

dead one wrote: »

the_syco wrote: »

How do lesbians figure into this world of yours?

lesbianism, it's sickness, contradiction to the rule of nature.. lesbianism, It is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, and corruption in human nature... No woman is born lesbian , just like no one is born a killerr. People get these stupid habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education.... syco, let's clean the world from these syco disases

I completely agree, people get stupid opinions from a lack of education and guidance. For example your stance is devoid of any clarity or basis. You attribute everything to a moral disease when lesbianism is perfectly natural and occurs in animals. Which would be indicative of a person being born with a predisposition of being attracted to somebody of the same sex. To claim that it's a mental illness is groundless and is merely your homophobia at work. I sincerely hope that you're not a troll because your behaviour is positively absurd.

dead one

Corkfeen wrote: »

I completely agree, people get stupid opinions from a lack of education and guidance. For example your stance is devoid of any clarity or basis. You attribute everything to a moral disease when lesbianism is perfectly natural and occurs in animals. Which would be indicative of a person being born with a predisposition of being attracted to somebody of the same sex. To claim that it's a mental illness is groundless and is merely your homophobia at work. I sincerely hope that you're not a troll because your behaviour is positively absurd.

Ah animals, Animals are animals you're human, if lesbianism is perfectly natural and occurs in animals then there are something which also occurs in animals... Like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8W4B9QK21Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGrdSto_w_U

So why don't human eat it. Are you not contradicting animal here. See corkfeen you have to prove, you have the dog, it's very easy for you to convert me, I will believe you and I will agree with you that lesbianism is part of nature but first i demand proof. + charges always repel + that's law of nature.

Mark Hamill

Of Other/No Faith and neither are OK

dead one wrote: »

Evidence is quite clear but you need a seer's eye to see it. You have a ordinary eye and ordinary eyes can't see it. Freedom which lacks control is corrosive to societies. Majority of Western are pure example for this... They have made much progress but fail to pure their soul. See, I am seeing that your civilization was dominated by evil. People are suffering with superiority complex and their inner self is quite darker. It is quite darker than those likes of Ghenghez Khan. See if I tell you my true thoughts, you won't be able to bear the truth. The Europe is dark with smoke of machines there is no torch which brights its inner light. The inner light has been gone. See your soul is dark as there is no purity in it.. Cleanliness of conscience is necessary.. Your Knowledge has been secularized and the secularized mind cut off from the unseen world... the unseen world-- the world of the sacred----The heart would then lose that sacred light without which its sight is... I know it's very hard for you to understand me, but I know people will understand me.

AKA you have no evidence. Repeated assertions of your intellectual, spiritual and moral superiority are not alternatives to actually giving evidence for your arguments.

dead one wrote: »

I am talking about majority. Majority are from women.

Majority of commercials abuse statistics and science-y sounding terms to sell to everyone, from make up ads using survey based stats to health products claiming scientific evidence that isn't actually there. I'm not saying there aren't ads that don't use women to sell their products, but many use men and most just use bs.

dead one wrote: »

What a strange love. which starts on body and ends on body.. You don't know real meaning love, love sees what eyes can't see.

Another completely empty claim. Look, dead one, it doesn't matter how much you really really believe these claims you make, you need to convince us of them (this is a discussion board remember) and repeated, patronising comments simply wont work.

Corkfeen

Of Other/No Faith and neither are OK

dead one wrote: »

Ah animals, Animals are animals you're human, if lesbianism is perfectly natural and occurs in animals then there are something which also occurs in animals... Like

So why don't human eat it. Are you not contradicting animal here. See corkfeen you have to prove, you have the dog, it's very easy for you to convert me, I will believe you and I will agree with you that lesbianism is part of nature but first i demand proof. + charges always repel + that's law of nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

You should refrain from posting youtube videos as that proves nothing. Firstly it's rather uncommon for donkeys or dogs to eat their own faeces. Humans have also been known to do it but that's more of a strange niche in the internet and it's particularly strange that you seem to go in search of these videos (going by your posts, you've probably seen the human version).

Humans are animals, not every single animal will share the exact same traits or behaviours. We have evolved over millions of years and we have defined what natural behaviour is for humans. There has always been a percentage of people that are homosexual, this predates Islam and the figure tends to be around the 10% or less mark. Loving relationships exist just as they do in straight couples and it harms nobody, yet you deem it acceptable to deem it psychotic......

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

I can't understand half of what you have written there as it seems to be ramblings that make no sense. I somehow doubt that producing evidence would change your mind as I have done so numerous times in different topics while you seem to be obsessed with posting your youtube viewing..... If I was responding to any other poster who genuinely wants a response, i'd probably elaborate in a more detailed fashion but I have my doubts about you giving a damn.

Mark Hamill

Of Other/No Faith and neither are OK

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Another completely empty claim. Look, dead one, it doesn't matter how much you really really believe these claims you make, you need to convince us of them (this is a discussion board remember) and repeated, patronising comments simply wont work.

I'm great and everyone should listen to me because I said I'm great and I know best just because

the_syco

dead one wrote: »

Ah animals, Animals are animals you're human, if lesbianism is perfectly natural and occurs in animals then there are something which also occurs in animals... Like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8W4B9QK21Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGrdSto_w_U

I see you dog eat sh|t, and raise you human putting sh|t on the walls of their room;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L965m4GB55c

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm great and everyone should listen to me because I said I'm great and I know best just because

Erm, how about no.

On the other hand, I'm an apostle of the most holy god of all gods, so listen to me, or you shall burn in hell (I can hear you whisper).

El_Duderino 09

Of Other/No Faith and neither are OK

dead one wrote: »

I am talking general western behavior about polygamy .... Why it isn't ok.. when girlfriends/mistresses/cheating is ok. I hope you get the point. Polyandry is also in the option but i don't care they think about polyandry. I don't care

Ah I see what you meant now. Thanks

Girlfriends/mistresses/cheating are not ok in most instances so what are you talking about? The word 'cheating' should be the clue there.

It happens, some people cheat on their partners but it is not ok.
Some people have open relationships or "manogamish" relationships as Dan Savage terms it, but if that is the agreement then it is not cheating because it is part of the contract.

Cheating is not regarded as good or ok.

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

AKA you have no evidence. Repeated assertions of your intellectual, spiritual and moral superiority are not alternatives to actually giving evidence for your arguments.

What type of evidence do you want, both male and female work outside homes, males have their partners and females have theirs and it results destruction to family system. The female are being used to cheat human emotions in media and business sectors. For example majority of movies hire women only to please and amuse audience. So that they can sale on her soul and body. Isn't it evidence. The body is used in movies and in your culture to feed the hunger of tired minds.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

. I'm not saying there aren't ads that don't use women to sell their products, but many use men and most just use bs.

not many very few, Commercials always revolve around women and it is very easy cheat men using pretty women.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Another completely empty claim. Look, dead one, it doesn't matter how much you really really believe these claims you make, you need to convince us of them (this is a discussion board remember) and repeated, patronising comments simply wont work.

what if you don't want to be convinced, what can i do then.

dead one

Corkfeen wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

You should refrain from posting youtube videos as that proves nothing.

Isn't it live evidence, Are you saying those videos are fake, the dog, which you love so much, hadn't put its mouth on sh!t and you sit with that dog on regular bases instead of human. I am here to cure you, but it seems you've chosen illness taking as cure. See, don't delude yourself.

Corkfeen wrote: »

Firstly it's rather uncommon for donkeys or dogs to eat their own faeces.

Uncommon, I have seen donkey and dogs eat sh!t on regular bases. I haven seen donkeys and horse eating sh!t while grazing. My eyes are evidence

Corkfeen wrote: »

Humans have also been known to do it but that's more of a strange niche in the internet and it's particularly strange that you seem to go in search of these videos (going by your posts, you've probably seen the human version).

You are busted, you fail to defend lesbianism argument using animal as a reason. you're not full of reason here.

Corkfeen wrote: »

Humans are animals, not every single animal will share the exact same traits or behaviours. We have evolved over millions of years and we have defined what natural behaviour is for humans. There has always been a percentage of people that are homosexual, this predates Islam and the figure tends to be around the 10% or less mark. Loving relationships exist just as they do in straight couples and it harms nobody, yet you deem it acceptable to deem it psychotic......

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

you said, Humans are animals and then you gave me a link "What Percentage of the Population Is Gay?" The pure human, who believe they are best creation of God, don't consider themselves animal and secondly they don't believe in gay ism and lesbianism. Now question arise who believe, these are those who believe human are animal. What difference does it make whether they are animal or human. Animals fvck their own mothers, some of human also but these are those who believe human are animal. The reason is very simple because there is no difference between them and animal. They prefer animal in their lives than human. Animal sometime put their face on sh!t and so is the case of these human. See dear corkfeen, you're best creation of God, it doesn't matter whether you believe in him or not but he has given you predefined intelligence, the intelligence which tell you that eating sh!t isn't good... The animals lack this intelligence and it makes you over and above these animals. Again animals are animals and you're human.

Corkfeen wrote: »

I can't understand half of what you have written there as it seems to be ramblings that make no sense. I somehow doubt that producing evidence would change your mind as I have done so numerous times in different topics while you seem to be obsessed with posting your youtube viewing..... If I was responding to any other poster who genuinely wants a response, i'd probably elaborate in a more detailed fashion but I have my doubts about you giving a damn.

I have done what must be done, dear corkfeen but it seems there is no cure.

dead one

the_syco wrote: »

I see you dog eat sh|t, and raise you human putting sh|t on the walls of their room;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L965m4GB55c

ah the_syco showing emotions, i thought sycos don't have emotions.

the_syco wrote: »

I see you dog eat sh|t

you see nothing, bro, you will see everything in next life

hivizman

Remember that the general principle of boards.ie is that participants should debate the posts, not make personal comments about other participants.

Mark Hamill

Of Other/No Faith and neither are OK

dead one wrote: »

What type of evidence do you want,

Some sort of independent study that shows the degree of philandering you claim and how it negatively effects society as you claim.

dead one wrote: »

not many very few, Commercials always revolve around women and it is very easy cheat men using pretty women.

And its easy to cheat women using men. Men are used commercials to entice women, not necessarily as sexual provocateurs, a lot of the times as idiots who can't function without women (see any cookery ad where a man can't use a microwave etc.). If dishonesty was really what you didn't like about advertising in the west, then you would be against all forms, not just teh forms using pretty women.

dead one wrote: »

what if you don't want to be convinced, what can i do then.

What makes you think "want" comes into it? If something is true, its true whether or not I want it to be. If I was afraid of something being true, in the context of discussions on this forum, then I wouldn't post on this forum.I'm here, so convince me.